C
Concorda
Concorda is an AI platform for litigation teams from Concorda, Inc., founded by former litigators, for IP, plaintiff and commercial litigation practices and legal departments. It drafts complaints, motions, briefs and discovery requests and responses from the full matter record in an interactive drafter that adapts to a firm's style, keeps facts, parties, exhibits and testimony connected across a matter, builds patent contention charts with a USPTO connection, and searches case law, statutes and local rules across every U.S. court in its own case database, with citations verified.
Its published terms bar training on customer content, address privileged material directly and commit to deletion timelines. The Team plan is $350 per user per month, self-serve with a two-week free trial; Enterprise is priced for larger teams. Not to be confused with Concord, the contract management company.
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
The models are the product. Concorda drafts complaints, motions, briefs and discovery responses from the matter record, searches and verifies case law, and builds patent contention charts; the matter workspace that holds the record supports that work. Without the models there is little left to sell. Verified 22 September 2026.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
Verification is claimed; the method is not described or measured. The home page says research runs across case law, statutes and local rules from every U.S. court in Concorda's own case database, updated daily and always citable to sources, and that every citation in the drafter is verified. How citations are verified, and how accurate the output is, is not published, and the terms warn that outputs may be inaccurate, incomplete or misleading and must be checked before use. Verified 22 September 2026.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
Drafting happens in an interactive editor under a written review duty, short of stated limits. The drafter works collaboratively, with the lawyer directing rewrites, and the terms require the customer to independently review and verify every output before relying on, filing, serving or disclosing it. No mode, threshold or limit on what the product may do on its own is described. Verified 22 September 2026.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
Checked the home, About, Plans and blog pages on 22 September 2026. No named customer, testimonial, case study or measured outcome is published. Verified 22 September 2026.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Written into the agreement, short of matter-level walls. The Terms and Data Processing Addendum bar using customer content to train, retrain or fine-tune any model; state that privileged material and work product are processed only as the customer's confidential service provider and are not intended to be waived, with confidentiality lasting as long as the protection does; send only limited data to third-party model providers under zero- or no-retention configurations, and never enable a provider that cannot meet that without disclosure and the customer's consent; and delete content within 30 days from production and 90 days from backups, with written certification. Separation between matters or users inside a firm is not described. Verified 22 September 2026.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
A plain position in the agreement, short of jurisdiction limits. The Terms say AI outputs are informational, not legal advice; that the customer keeps sole professional responsibility, must independently review and verify every output before relying on or filing it, and remains responsible for its rules of professional conduct; that Concorda does not practise law and has no attorney-client relationship; and that the service is for organisations, not consumers. The jurisdictions the product covers or excludes are not stated. Verified 22 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behaviour: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
Checked the home, About, Plans and blog pages, the Terms and Data Processing Addendum and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release, or finding on how drafting or research performs across practice areas or courts was located. Verified 22 September 2026.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
Most of the ground is committed in the agreement; the subprocessor list is on request. The Data Processing Addendum sets out a written security programme with role-based access, multi-factor authentication, encryption in transit and at rest, logging, monitoring and incident response; deletion within 30 days from production and 90 days from backups, with certification; notice of a confirmed security incident within 72 hours with set contents and help with notifying clients, courts and regulators; and 30 days' notice before a new subprocessor, with a right to cancel.
The subprocessor list, including AI model providers and processing countries, is available on request rather than published. Verified 22 September 2026.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
A published position with a higher cap for the risks that matter most, and output errors left with the firm. The Terms cap liability at twelve months' fees, but at three times that for breach of the no-training, confidentiality or data processing commitments, and let the customer recover the cost of investigating a breach and notifying clients, courts and regulators; the caps do not apply to gross negligence, wilful misconduct or fraud.
Output accuracy is not warranted, and the customer indemnifies Concorda for claims arising from reliance on unverified output. Verified 22 September 2026.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
One named connection, undocumented. The home page describes automated patent contention charts with a USPTO connection. No document management, practice management, email or e-filing connection is named, and what the USPTO connection does is not described; content is exported in a standard format. Verified 22 September 2026.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
Checked the home, Plans and About pages, the Terms and Data Processing Addendum and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No hosting provider, region, tenancy or deployment option is published; the addendum says the countries where data is processed are listed in a subprocessor list available on request. Verified 22 September 2026.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
A named attestation, with evidence on request. The home and Plans pages say Concorda is SOC 2 Type II audited, and the Data Processing Addendum commits to share current security documentation and any certifications or audit reports once a year on written request. A trust centre is linked from the site; its contents could not be viewed on the date shown. No auditor or report period is published. Verified 22 September 2026.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
The architecture and its controls are described; the providers are not named. The Data Processing Addendum says Concorda sends limited customer data to third-party AI model providers only for features the customer uses, under enterprise or API terms that bar training and with zero or no retention, and gives 30 days' notice before adding or replacing any subprocessor, AI model providers included. Which providers and models are used is in a list available on request, not published. Verified 22 September 2026.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
The self-serve price is published; Enterprise is quoted. The Plans page lists the Team plan at $350 per user per month, monthly or annual, with the first two weeks free and no demo or sales call needed, covering unlimited matters and uploads. Enterprise, for more than 10 users, has flexible pricing and custom terms on a call. Verified 22 September 2026.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
Practice areas and work types are named, short of limits. The site addresses IP, plaintiff and commercial litigation teams and legal departments, lists the documents it drafts, from complaints and motions to interrogatory responses and contention charts, and says its case database covers every U.S. court. The courts, practice areas and document types it does not handle are not stated. Verified 22 September 2026.
3 public documents
The public pages on file for Concorda, with the recorded signals each one supports and the date it was last read. Open any of them and check the reading against the record.
-
concordahq.com/terms_and_conditions5 signals
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice and 2 more
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
concordahq.com2 signals
Primary Law Corpus Provenance, Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 22, 2026
$350 per user per month (Team plan)USD, as published, never converted
- Concorda's Team plan costs $350 per user per month.
- The first two weeks are free, and you can start without a demo or sales call.
- It covers unlimited matters and document uploads.
- Teams of more than 10 users can ask for Enterprise pricing and custom terms.
Published per-user subscription, Enterprise quoted. **Team (Monthly)**: $350 per user per month, first two weeks free, drafting from the full matter record, connected facts, parties, exhibits and testimony, research and citation verification across case law, statutes, regulations, local rules and standing orders, unlimited matters and uploads. **Annual** billing is offered alongside monthly. **Enterprise**: custom pricing and terms for more than 10 users, with security review and custom DPA support, dedicated onboarding and workflow setup, and a dedicated account manager.
Implementation: None for the Team plan, which needs no setup call. Enterprise includes dedicated onboarding and workflow setup; no fee is published.
Confidentiality and data terms: No Business Associate Agreement is offered or referred to on the site. The Data Processing Addendum is framed around U.S. state privacy laws, and the Enterprise plan offers custom DPA support.
Note: The Team plan starts without a demo or sales call and cancels at any time, with files exportable throughout and for 60 days after an account ends. The Terms give 30 days' notice of material changes, effective at renewal, with a pro-rata refund if the customer cancels instead. An annual option is offered; its rate is not shown on the page read.
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
The published terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.
The Terms say Concorda does not use customer content to train, retrain, fine-tune or otherwise adjust any AI model, for the customer or anyone else, and the Data Processing Addendum repeats the commitment and requires model providers to be configured so they cannot train on it. Breach of the no-training clause carries a liability cap three times the standard one. Aggregated, de-identified usage data may be derived but must not identify the customer, its clients or the substance of its content.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The customer controls the retention window, by product configuration or by contractual instruction, but zero retention is not stated as available.
Customers can delete their content or ask in writing for it to be deleted, and content can be exported at any time and for 60 days after an account ends. The Data Processing Addendum then requires deletion within 30 days from production systems and within 90 days from backups, including by subprocessors, with written certification on request. Model providers are used with zero or no retention. A setting that keeps nothing inside Concorda is not described.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.
Checked the home, Plans and About pages and the Terms and Data Processing Addendum on 22 September 2026. The addendum describes role-based access controls within Concorda's own security programme, and the terms let a customer cancel if the business passes to an adverse party; nothing describes separating matters or users inside a customer's account.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.
The Data Processing Addendum commits Concorda, where legally permitted, to notify the customer promptly of a subpoena, court order or other legal process seeking its data, give it a chance to object or seek protection, disclose only what is legally required and cooperate in efforts to quash or narrow the demand. The Terms add advance notice where permitted. No transparency report was located.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Coverage is described by jurisdiction with no identification of the underlying corpus.
The home page describes Concorda's own case database covering case law, statutes and local rules from every U.S. court, updated daily. Where the underlying opinions and rules come from, and the basis on which they are used, is not identified.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
Checked the home and Plans pages and the Terms on 22 September 2026. The site says every citation in the drafter is verified and research results are ranked by relevance; nothing addresses whether cited authority is checked for later negative treatment.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
Checked the home and Plans pages and the Terms on 22 September 2026. Nothing describes what drafting or research does when the record or the case law does not support a point.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 22 September 2026 for Concorda, and no recorded case was returned. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.
The Terms leave the customer responsible for its applicable rules of professional conduct and require independent review of every output before filing. No ethics opinion is named.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.
The home page promises fewer late nights, a full day of drafting per party turned into deposition strategy time, and high-quality output without more headcount or outside spend. Nothing addresses how AI-assisted work is reflected in what a client is billed.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The material exists behind a sales conversation or an executed agreement.
The Data Processing Addendum says Concorda keeps a current list of subprocessors, including every AI model provider and the countries where data is processed, available on request, and gives 30 days' notice before adding or replacing one. Security documentation and audit reports are shared once a year on written request. The list itself is not published.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
Checked the home and Plans pages and the Terms on 22 September 2026. Nothing addresses recording or disclosing AI use in filings; the Terms leave review and disclosure to the customer.